Ball head yes or no? (3 Viewers)

[ReinierB]

Good day,

I've read on different places that a ball head is not recommended for a spotting scope watching birds. I have never read why not. Do some of you use a ball head? The advantage of a ball head is the weight. Are they usable for a light weight spotting scope (ATC 56)?
I just wonder.

 

[Richard D]

A fluid head with a handle is more convienient and usually faster, but providing it's a decent ball-head they work fine with lighter scopes.

 

[Will K]

I currently use a high quality ball head with an 85mm scope. I appreciate the compact size, and have yet to note any problems with manoeuvrability or stability. Its Gitzo, however, so cheaper ball heads will probably offer very different experiences, and I completely appreciate that fluid or two ways heads are generally preferred for scopes. However, previous threads have noted that a Gitzo 1545T would make an excellent pairing with an ATC, and a basic ball head kit would suit it very well, I think.

 

[wllmspd]

If the ballhead has a notch in the housing then some people drop the head stalk into the notch. Then they end up with a mount hat can remove independently in altitude and azimuth rather than just in all directions. I use a fluid head as it gives me more control and use the other hand to lock the movement or adjust the focus.

Peter

 

[Will K]

That's another thing about ball heads: there's often no obvious place to hold the scope steady while you are adjusting position. I use my scope with something like a pistol grip around the head stalk, and use the other hand to adjust tension, focus, etc. I'm not sure how an ATC would function in this situation, specifically, but since it has handheld capacity (according to Swarovski's marketing), it might be ok.

The ball head I use does have a notch, as described in post #4, but I don't use it that much.

 

[opisska]

Several times I had friends let me use their scopes on ball heads to have a look at something and each and every time I was wandering what possessed them to use such a torturous device, which is inherently unstable because of basic laws of physics and really nothing can be done against that.

 

[wllmspd]

When I let others use my scope (with fluid head) I am always puzzled as many grab the scope by the eyepiece…. It’s much easier and precise to hold the fluid head handle in one hand and adjust the focus with the other…. Is it rude to give instruction?

Peter

 

[jring]

Hi,

in short:

• no handle.
• next to impossible to set the friction just right so you have a fluid movement but the scope does not tilt from its own weight.
• if the friction is set too low, the whole scope can tilt over suddenly.

The only way I would use a ballhead for a scope are either for sth super lightweight on a monopod (but otoh - you have it in your hand all the time, why use a head at all) or in pinch with scope with a rotation collar set to the side and a ballhead with notch tilted into the notch so the setup emulates a gimbal.

Joachim

 

[Hermann]

When I let others use my scope (with fluid head) I am always puzzled as many grab the scope by the eyepiece…. It’s much easier and precise to hold the fluid head handle in one hand and adjust the focus with the other…. Is it rude to give instruction?

As long at it's your scope - no. After all, it's your scope.

BTW, I don't use any fluid head handles myself. Stopped using them at least twenty years ago. They add weight and are basically just a nuisance.

Hermann

 

[jring]

BTW, I don't use any fluid head handles myself. Stopped using them at least twenty years ago. They add weight and are basically just a nuisance.

Hi,

it's probably a matter of taste - when my fluid head has just the right amount of friction for me - so I can still do nice pans but the scope is not easily shoved off target by slightly clumsy fellow birders taking a peek, I certainly want the lever arm that the handle provides. Admittedly, they tend to get into the way in their original state and need to be rotated, shortened and/or bent to taste...

Joachim

 

[Hermann]

in short:

• no handle.
• next to impossible to set the friction just right so you have a fluid movement but the scope does not tilt from its own weight.
• if the friction is set too low, the whole scope can tilt over suddenly.

Excellent summary although I'd dispute the usefulness of a handle. You don't need one with a good video head.

The only way I would use a ballhead for a scope are either for sth super lightweight on a monopod (but otoh - you have it in your hand all the time, why use a head at all) or in pinch with scope with a rotation collar set to the side and a ballhead with notch tilted into the notch so the setup emulates a gimbal.

On a monopod - maybe, especially when observing from a car. Very flexible, allows you to find halfway comfortable positions for observing, especially when you use an angled scope with a collar.

On a tripod - yes, but only in combination with a lightweight scope on a lightweight tripod if you absolutely must keep the weight down as much as you can. A high quality ballhead (like the RRS BH-25) can weigh as little as ~150 gr. My lightest decent video head weighs ~460 gr. (without that stupid handle). That's a noticeable difference in difficult terrain, especially if you have to carry some safety gear as well.

For all other purposes a ballhead is a big non-no for use with a scope.

Hermann

 

[chill6x6]

I've used a Manfrotto 128RC fluid head with handle so long I'm not sure I would like anything else.

 

[ReinierB]

I currently use a high quality ball head with an 85mm scope. I appreciate the compact size, and have yet to note any problems with manoeuvrability or stability. Its Gitzo, however, so cheaper ball heads will probably offer very different experiences, and I completely appreciate that fluid or two ways heads are generally preferred for scopes. However, previous threads have noted that a Gitzo 1545T would make an excellent pairing with an ATC, and a basic ball head kit would suit it very well, I think.

What ball head of Gitzo do you exactly use?

 

[Hermann]

What ball head of Gitzo do you exactly use?

Before you get too hung up about Gitzo ballheads: Gitzo makes excellent tripods and good video heads. Their ballheads are also quite good. Quite, not very. There are companies that make better ballheads. Really Right Stuff, Kirk and Markins, to name a few. Check this website: Ball Head Rankings

Hermann

 

[Will K]

What ball head of Gitzo do you exactly use?

Its an 82TQD. That's quite a small ball head, and very likely not to be the best one available (as Hermann notes), but I can only say that I've been very impressed with it and not felt the need for an 'upgrade' while out in the field birding. What's particularly impressive is the fact that its possible to adjust the tension so that you can move and position the scope through any horizontal or vertical angle smoothly, whilst maintaining enough tension for the scope to hold itself steady when not applying pressure, and there's no give, pushback or wobble. I was using it to track birds and digiscope all afternoon yesterday, and I wasn't having any problems at all. All that, and its as light and compact as anyone could ask for.

It might take a little practice to a new user to get the feel for it, but I've no complaints to make about the 82TQD. It will probably come down to personal preference, though; some people will just feel that a setup with no handle is basically unusable.

 

[mbb]

If the ballhead has a notch in the housing then some people drop the head stalk into the notch. Then they end up with a mount hat can remove independently in altitude and azimuth rather than just in all directions.

with scope with a rotation collar set to the side and a ballhead with notch tilted into the notch so the setup emulates a gimbal.

Well, that sounds like a nice idea! I’m wondering why I never saw this mentioned anywhere else or why I didn’t try it yet.
I guess that wouldn’t work with most stay-on-cases though, rotating the scope around its collar that way, 90 degrees? (Until now, I have never encountered the need to use that rotating option/collar, thus I have never tried it.)

That trick might be worth trying with my Opticron 50mm scope and Gitzo series 1 travel tripod.
I’m still looking for the right head to use with it. (The Leofoto ballhead that I have is clearly the weakest link in this setup. It is quite annoying to use.)
I’m wondering if setting up the scope like that, side-way, wouldn’t have too much of a negative impact on the stability, creating some unbalance on that lightweight tripod. It is a compact scope weighing less than 1kg, but the tripod itself is not that much heavier itself…

 

[Nethero]

While not required, a panning clamp such as those offered by Really Right Stuff helps make the up/down rotation when the ball head is in the notch emulate a gimbal head even more. Something like the BH-30 with a panning clamp would work very well for the 50mm scope with a series 1 tripod. A BH-40 is also a great ball head but might be more robust than needed.

 

[LucaPCP]

In my mind it's simple. Ball heads are more compact for super light weight tripods.
But they have the drawback that to move the scope, you put force on the scope directly, which is less precise, less easy to do while staring through the eyepiece, and puts strain on the scope foot (the connection between scope and ball head).

A tripod head with handle, on the other hand, is much easier to use while staring through the scope, and puts no strain on the scope foot.

 

[Tringa45]

and puts strain on the scope foot (the connection between scope and ball head).

Many years ago I used to use a ball head for my scope but replaced the top plate with a quick release coupling, initially Manfrotto RC and later an Arca-Swiss compatible Novoflex Q-Mount. Most ball head and QR couplings are 3/8"x16 compatible.

John

 

[bcskr]

When used with a lightweight scope I have had adequate results with a ball head. One important factor is to have separate rotation or pan capability in addition to tightening the clamp on the ball.